Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Incorrect. It's a mostly conservative initiative that has mass support across the spectrum which comes from the Neo-Confucianist values ingrained into Korean society during the 512 years of the Joseon dynasty. Furthermore, people like myself (Shintoist) agree with upping the age to 18.

If we accept your argument, then most of policy of the ruling party is because they are conservative, not because they are pro-Christian. They just won the General election for the control of legislative branch, which will further strengthen their hold in judicial branch ( http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...16_112523.html ) . On top of this, the ruling party may win the Presidential election later this year. What motive will ruling party have for changing their way? Wouldn't they become emboldened to push for even stronger conservative agenda, and give less heed to those who want compromise or wish for moderate agenda? Wouldn't the ruling party further engage in ideological warfare to purge Korean society of dissenting voices? Wouldn't they further suppress voice of academicians who presents cases against the claims of ruling party? If you are fan of the Korean ruling party, this is a good time, but if you are not, then what hope does those not favored by Saenuri Party have? For those who desires political reforms in Korea to protect the poor, reduce governmental corruptions, and end the distortion of truth by state-run media( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_o...ectronic_Media ), there is much to fear that things will get worse.

Governor of Osaka is getting some heat, he publically stated "Murderer. If you want to die so badly, why not go kill yourself. Don't involve others." to the killer's intenions.
A lot of people are flaming him for being inappropriate and insensitive, but to hell with em.

Oh yeah? I don't agree, murderers may have pathological issues, childhood problems, they aren't simply following their pulsions to kill, there is generally reasons for them to do so, to not give them a trial or understanding those reasons is to run away from a society's problem and why they became what they are now.

Let's say a girl is abused by her teacher and ends up killing him for revenge, hate, or whatever, she is a murderer, would you approve that man's sentence? Probably not, then why? BEcause it's a girl? Because she was abused? But most murderers in their life suffered from something, the scale changing from one's to another.

But he seems to talking about one murderer, there's a psychopath serial killer in Osaka or what?

Here's the inconvenient truth: Unlike most countries, the "liberals" of Korea are the greater of two evils. The reason why Saenuri had been able to rebound from their loss in support was how the "liberals" conducted themselves, being far more oppressive and ideological than the Saenuri. Frankly, Korea is in a pretty strange situation where the conservatives in power would mean a freer society than if the "liberals" came to power.

But he seems to talking about one murderer, there's a psychopath serial killer in Osaka or what?

You should read the context before ranting. It's one guy who was in jail before for murder (or attempted murder, I forget which), and was released shortly before this incident. He wanted to commit suicide, but was too chicken to do so. So, he got a knife and randomly stabbed two people to death so that he'd be executed.

There was no link for me to know the context, I can't guess what's going on in the whole world.

Nonetheless doesn't change a thing, it still suits my first part, I can sympathize with the family of the two dead people, but the fact that man tried to commit suicid is as well a problem, and instead of condamning him, there should be proper work why that man dived in so much in despair.

Here's the inconvenient truth: Unlike most countries, the "liberals" of Korea are the greater of two evils. The reason why Saenuri had been able to rebound from their loss in support was how the "liberals" conducted themselves, being far more oppressive and ideological than the Saenuri. Frankly, Korea is in a pretty strange situation where the conservatives in power would mean a freer society than if the "liberals" came to power.

"Kemalists", I presume ?

So this Saenuri party is pretty much Korean version of AKP that is trying to overture the top-down imposed modernization upon the society whether they like it or not by the previous regime ?

Now I know why I get this strange attraction towards the country....

Still, the American evangelical component in its make up ought to make one nervous.

There was no link for me to know the context, I can't guess what's going on in the whole world.

Speaking of trying to understand people, maybe you should have read a few posts upward... Lead by example, you know? Kinda hard to take you seriously if you don't.

Quote:

Nonetheless doesn't change a thing, it still suits my first part, I can sympathize with the family of the two dead people, but the fact that man tried to commit suicid is as well a problem, and instead of condamning him, there should be proper work why that man dived in so much in despair.

And it doesn't change the fact that it would have been far, far better for him to kill himself on his own rather than murder two random strangers. Still a tragedy, if you want to insist on calling it that, but a much smaller one.

Speaking of trying to understand people, maybe you should have read a few posts upward... Lead by example, you know? Kinda hard to take you seriously if you don't.

And it doesn't change the fact that it would have been far, far better for him to kill himself on his own rather than murder two random strangers. Still a tragedy, if you want to insist on calling it that, but a much smaller one.

No relationship sir, I don't play at "see the last post" but "see the last page", I simply saw the quote, whether you take me seriously or not is the slightest of my problem, you are actually free of agreeing with what the japenese man said or not, and it's impossible to change one's opinion on this, I simply voiced mine.

Yes the tragedy would have been smaller if that man killed himself, but now maybe -at least- some people will try to understand why that man tried to suicid himself yet couldn't, and maybe it will change something for japense society, this one especially isn't easy. Otherwise it would have simply been " [Not breaking news]A former prisonnier suicid himself after being released". And who cares about that?

Edit: Man, come on are you kidding, stop playing semantic with me, we passed this, my post still hold all its value without knowing all the context, and there wasn't even the need to know the whole context, I do not agree with his sentence, I showed why, that's all. What you are doing is ridiculous -seeking the little mouse where it isn't-.

Your opinion on a conversation you couldn't be arsed to read, let alone understand, thus taking that quote you commented on out of context. When your oh so valuable opinion is that we should make an effort to understand people and the context of their actions (or does that apply only to murderers?). I just found the contradiction amusing.

Here's the inconvenient truth: Unlike most countries, the "liberals" of Korea are the greater of two evils. The reason why Saenuri had been able to rebound from their loss in support was how the "liberals" conducted themselves, being far more oppressive and ideological than the Saenuri. Frankly, Korea is in a pretty strange situation where the conservatives in power would mean a freer society than if the "liberals" came to power.

Interesting take. In another post, you mentioned similarity between Saenuri and what I guess to be Tea Party in USA, yet you also say "Frankly, Korea is in a pretty strange situation where the conservatives in power would mean a freer society than if the "liberals" came to power." I believe the IDEAL situation in Korea is when at least one branch of government is held by different party from another branch, so the two evil can cancel each other out.

I do agree that the opposition party has serious problem, starting with UNDEMOCRATIC way they run the party ( I know some inside stories that isn't in the news ). Having said that, Korea seriously lacks serious parties that upholds democratic ideals of 'compromising with those that disagree with you' while also upholding ideals of either Social Liberalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism ) or Progressivism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism ) , as the most laws that pushed Korea towards being more Conservative Neoliberalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism ) was proposed by the current opposition party when they were the ruling party.

Eh, more like a mix-up of the Conservatives of the UK and Canada and a dash of the US Republicans on the fringes.

Ah! I guess you meant Saenuri fringe, not Republican fringe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Eh? When did I say that?

I don't know what to really say about it, given that Roh was a pretty strange president. He was too polarizing, too confrontational, and too much of a paradox.

I disagree about being confrontational, since he did little to change the status quo of Korea he inherited, but do agree about being a paradox. He was supported by those who claimed to like Social Liberalism, but his policies were very neo-liberalist

Oh sure, salt the wounds. Just remember we came back and beat the Hawks last year after getting eliminated by them the two years prior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

/awaits news of riots in Canada

Unlikely. Vancouver isn't going to host giant outdoor parties with tens of thousands of Canucks fans attending unless Vancouver is in the playoffs. And the game seven party last year also attracted the "goon" crowd looking to recreate the (smaller but still significant) 1994 game seven riot which occurred after the Canucks lost to the Rangers in New York.

Not that Vancouver doesn't have it's share of bad fan behaviour... my mom had a co-worker from Chicago who once got Timbits (Canada's national mini donut) thrown at her when she wore a Blackhawks jersey in public.